PSU 86 wrote:But, this is not risk. Any argument that suggests that Risk does it a certain way, so therefore CC should also change the rules to be like Risk, is flawed.CC is better in many ways than Risk. It is worse in a few ways. CC is better because: no cheating on the troops - when you get ten troops to start your turn, the computer is the police who make sure you got ten. If you "LOSE TWO" the computer makes sure that two are taken off the board (instantaneously I might add!). Being drunk, or tired NEVER leads to counting mistakes on CC. Noticing that your opponent is not paying attention so you maybe take twelve to start your turn instead of ten NEVER happens in CC. The little counting mistakes that can always occur with Risk NEVER happen in CC thanks to the computer being the bean counter. Remember that a Risk board game takes hours to complete and all that extra time is from COUNTING troops and placing them on the board - something that is done rather quickly on CC. CC is worse in only a few things: it is less sociable to play facing a computer than to play with other people your own age (we always played 4 player, 2 guys 2 girls... all aged in early to mid 20's). There is no doubt that this is an advantage for the board game Risk in my humble opinion.

The whole premise of CC is meant to emulate RISK. Obviously this isn't going to be a face to face game, but when the site was first founded, it captured the game as close as it can it. At the end of the day, CC is still meant to be RISK, with the addition of new ideas from the community. The problem we're currently facing here is that the site is old, over a decade, it has outdated coding, and with that, people take advantage of it, while others don't. The question I pose is: Do you think it's fair for someone to not take a card to create an advantage over others? Say that a player has a bonus, 4 cards, and has to break the other players bonus. The 4 cards he's currently holding would zombify/nuke his bonus. He can't let that happen because he doesn't want to put in the resources to reclaim it, or outright lose. So just run out the clock.

Probably not the best example, but the idea is that if something is creating an unfair advantage over others, it should be immediately be addressed rather than simply say "Well, that's just how it works".

PSU 86 wrote:CC will enjoy more success and profits if they keep the rules simple. A game or sport with complicated rules will eventually lead to less people being interested in it. Whatever the administrators decide, it should be one rule for all the different types of set ups (nuke, escalating, flat, etc.). Otherwise , it will get mind boggling to understand. CC has a good thing going. Dont bastardize it to make it more like the board game Risk.

The settings being changed to where you're forced to take a card rather than wait out the timer wouldn't complicated to understand. The most complicated thing about CC are the maps that are added. Take The Temple of Jinn for example. That map is a mess to look at for me, would never touch it unless I want to go blind.

PSU 86 wrote:Those of you who like to throw around the word "cheating"....I ask you: Was it cheating when your caveman ancestor evaded a predator in an unconventional manner? Before you answer, let me remind you that you would not be here had they been caught.

Thankfully, a website is not a life or death situation. Apples to Oranges.Many analogys can be drawn between real life and games (and sports). Your "apples to oranges" cliche is being overused.

PSU 86 wrote:Is it cheating to put a childs college money in a college fund thereby evading taxes on the gains?

Apples to Oranges.

PSU 86 wrote:Is it cheating to start multiple businesses but first you LLC them giving yourself limited liability in a corporation? If one fails, you claim bankruptcy on that one only. When one of your businesses hits big, you keep all the profits (in your LLC which you control).

Apples to Oranges.

PSU 86 wrote:Life has always rewarded the person who can seek out and find the hidden opportunity. Dont make the mistake of thinking that EVERYONE who plays CC knows that they can let the clock run out and avoid getting a card which will keep him from nuking himself. Those of you who oppose people taking advantage of the loophole, let me tell you something that you probably already know: YOU can do it too. Dont EVER forget that you are only here on earth today because one or more of your ancestors "cheated" to stay alive to reproduce another day.I personally prefer that our unique and wonderful game of CC should remain as it is with the timing out loophole the way it is. In my 20,000 or so games on here, I have done it probably only 3 times (all in speed games) but it is analogous to life in that it rewards someone who seeks and finds the hidden opportunity. But whatever the administrators decide is fine by me. Lets just keep it simple.

Yes but society IE: Judges, administrators, etc. have repeatedly punished people for taking advantage of "hidden opportunity". Fraud for example, is heavily punished, which in a way, is cheating the system. Embezzlement is another one that is heavily punished. People, whether it be a minority or majority, will attempt to take advantage over others, there's no reason to believe that CC is the exception here. Congratulations that you don't do it, but that doesn't speak for everyone in CC who has done it or are still doing it to create that advantage.

DirtyDishSoap wrote:If you're taking advantage of a loophole or a glitch or poor programming for an advantage over others, it's called cheating. A lot of people in the gaming world today in the multiplayer scene like the new Player Unknown Battlegrounds would receive an immediate ban for taking advantage of a glitch/loophole/cheating.

In what other nicety can you put it as? Forgetfulness?

demonfork wrote:Forced spoils of war is a dumb concept.

What other game in the wold of real life combat/war situation requires this?

If I'm on the battlefield of war and I kill an enemy soldier, am I required to take his weapon or do I have the option to leave it behind?

You're required to take the weapon actually. lol

demonfork wrote:If I'm playing any game from fucking Legend of Zelda all the way to the latest FPS, am I required to take the spoils from a kill or can I leave that shit behind?

Different games, different concepts, different settings. The site is obviously meant to emulate RISK. Clear and cut case of comparing an Apple to an Orange. Come on mayne...

demonfork wrote:Furthermore, If you decide to time-out and miss your spoil, you miss your fortify step. This reality adds a modicum of balance to the act of not taking a card and therefore turns the option of "timing out" into a legitimate strategy decision.

What do you think hurts more? Drawing out the time to prevent an auto nuke on yourself, or missing a fortify?

Many analogys can be drawn between real life and games (and sports). Your "apples to oranges" cliche is being overused.

Not really no, not by your context at least. Real life where it's a life and death situation is completely different from a board game. Same things apply to putting your kid through college by evading tax or starting multiple businesses with shady practices. How do you draw the conclusion that your ancestors or mine is meant to be similar to a board game?

Answer these, and let me know how you think they compare to cheating or using a "loophole" in an online website.

1. Are you cheating or using a "loophole" on a website because you think if you don't, your kid won't make it into college?

2. Are you cheating or using a "loophole" on a website because you assume our ancestors would have wanted you to? Or because they treat a harmless online board game as a life or death situation? Does a piece of your soul wither and die when you lose a game?

3. Are you a business tycoon that's dependent on how well you do on this site or any website, therefor, you have to cheat or use a "loophole" to win?

I'm saying Apples to Oranges because the comparisons do not match whatever argument you're trying to make.A better comparison would have been to say "Well, in Football IE: The Oakland Raiders and Madden, they cheated or used under handed tactics in (the 70's?) to win games". To which I would counter and say that's why later, the NFL made rules and regulations to keep the game fair (Not perfect but you get the concept, hopefully). The same thing applies to steroids and it's overall frowned upon use in sports, and doping for marathons, etc.

The main principle of this entire "loophole" or cheating, which it is, is that a player is creating a clear advantage over others. That's it. It has absolutely nothing to do with my ancestors, my kids college tuition, a entrepreneur extraordinaire, a first person shooter where core mechanics are completely different from a board game, or how an individual soldier conducts ROE.

ManBungalow wrote:For BBS, I recommend he get more DDS. That way, he won't experience such jealous BJ's.

AndyDufresne wrote:The current reason you do not get a card for not ending your turn is that by making that the only way to get your card, we are reminding you not to stall the game unecessarily (I.E. starting your hour turn, getting finished in 5 minutes, and then letting the game sit while you are 'playing your turn' for 55 minutes).

--Andy

This answer was made before nuclear spoils were implemented.Nuclear spoils were implemented in December 2009.

Imagine if you and your friends are getting together to play Risk. One would not deploy armies, successfully attack a territory, and say no to the card - you have to take the card! Thus, I think implementing the change on 24hr games and only when one has successfully attack a territory is appropriate. Thanks!

Not everything that happens in person happens during CC. You don’t select territories one at a time around the table on CCYou can’t ever forget to draw a card on CC like IRLYou can’t pick your color on CC IRL

I’m sure there are other examples but fact is CC is based on risk but is not risk. There are differences

IcePack wrote:Not everything that happens in person happens during CC. You don’t select territories one at a time around the table on CCYou can’t ever forget to draw a card on CC like IRLYou can’t pick your color on CC IRL

I’m sure there are other examples but fact is CC is based on risk but is not risk. There are differences

Yes, but there are differences and then there are differences. Some apply equally to all; others are only available to the unscrupulous.

IcePack wrote:Not everything that happens in person happens during CC. You don’t select territories one at a time around the table on CCYou can’t ever forget to draw a card on CC like IRLYou can’t pick your color on CC IRL

I’m sure there are other examples but fact is CC is based on risk but is not risk. There are differences

Yeah, but CC is again, meant to emulate RISK. If CC were its own game and brand, it wouldn't say on it's front page:

Originally inspired by the board game RISK™, Conquer Club has taken Risk online,

Take this for example. The movie "Saving Private Ryan" was a movie about WWII. It's meant to emulate it as closely as possible, capturing the brutality of the war. There wasn't any of the Rambo bulletproof heroes and I think Spielberg captured the vision of what happened as best as he could with what he was given.Imagine if this same film completely deviated the norm though, and threw in an F-16 fighter jet on Omaha. That's when it suddenly breaks the immersion, the emulation and the overall accuracy of what had happened in WWII.

Is the film 100% accurate? No, of course not. But Spielberg didn't go into absurd territory of unrealistic.

In short. Yes, CC isn't RISK, but IT IS RISK. And it should be a reflection of it as close as possible. The card thing is absurd, and I can't think of a reason why someone would not be forced to take a card after attacking if I were sitting at a table with friends, no matter the settings (Unless No Spoils).

ManBungalow wrote:For BBS, I recommend he get more DDS. That way, he won't experience such jealous BJ's.

Is it possible to make it an option in game play, so we can choose ahead of time, like we do with reinforcement type? If not, then it seems like you can only make the change to 24 hour games. It would not make sense in speed games.

--------DOWN GOES THE LOOP-HOLE .........WHEN HIGH COMMAND,WHEN???......... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)... ......At least let us know you have seen the vote...something is being done...

ConfederateSS wrote:--------DOWN GOES THE LOOP-HOLE .........WHEN HIGH COMMAND,WHEN???......... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)... ......At least let us know you have seen the vote...something is being done...